 Good evening friends and once it was a Sunday and I requested Mr. Javad to you do a lot of meditation as well as mediation. We will not talk about meditation as such but definitely we will talk of mediation. And that too, at least a lot of people do have a motion within them as to whether there is any sanctity of a private mediation. What is the role and though it's not related as to whether one can make a career in a private mediation. So we had resource persons Mr. Atul Akhanpal, a senior advocate, a senior trainer and mediator of Punjab and Naira High Court. And though he has his recognition not only in India but beyond that just like a virtual world and today's webinar he's acknowledged everywhere. And same is with Mr. Javad, those who are connected on the social media, you'll find Mr. Javad, he may talk to you privately but he's publicly known figure. And therefore we thought that public mediation and public sanctity mediation are always, we are talking about why not talk about private mediation not in a private place but open in a public place. I will not take much time because we have amongst us also Varunar. Again, I can say that I'd heard that dots do make line and if they are meaningful persons they make a line in a positive direction. I will ask Varunar to share her thoughts and then we'll request Mr. Javad and Mr. Atul Akhanpal to take the sessions forward on a Sunday evening when people have kept their time for the private time for the family. But during that time to chip in, not for the tea but chip in for the knowledge for gaining of private mediation, sanctity etc. I'll ask Varunar to share her thoughts and then over to them. So to begin with, thank you Vikas ji and very well said Atul ji and Javad ji are not limited to the country but they are world over, very, very prominent with their training abilities and their mediation abilities and meditation as well. So coming to the topic of private mediation, so I would say that that is the future of dispute resolution and by future I mean to say that we have already worked toward it for last couple of years. And see in private mediation, I feel that we have the support of arbitration and conciliation act and when the either of the parties approaches a mediation center or a mediator office, they can propose like a quiesoc. That well, you have come to us and they are in your matter, there is a possibility of a faster, you know, adjudication of the problem. So instead of going for litigation, maybe we can try mediation for that appropriate office or a center which is well reputed. We do have a court annexed pre litigation mediation center also where you can put in your putting an application on behalf of that person and go for the other side. So that is when there is a lawyer who is working as a quiesoc and is directing a person, a party to go for mediation first because he is giving him an option of litigation as well as mediation and benefits of mediation he explains to the person. So the person has to move an application and the application, if it is a court annexed, they will be, they will be, I'm just talking of the process that they will be noticed sent to the other side and they will be asked to appear before the center along with their lawyer. Once the parties are there and mediator is allocated to them, the mediator will make an opening statement is the parties are willing to participate or want to try mediation before they have gone in for litigation or even if there is litigation going on, yet they want to go in for mediation for faster adjudication. So they, they can ask the center to go ahead with it. And even if they have gone to any organization, which is providing mediation, and they have made an application the presently in my office we are taking the benefit of arbitration and arbitration act, and we send a notice to the other side. And once the other side comes mediator is allocated. The mediator makes an opening statement. If the parties are willing to go ahead with it. The process of mediation is followed. And after the process is followed the settlement award. There is a type of type agreement between the mediator and the two parties or more maybe more parties. And in that the rules of mediation are made out the parties accept the fee structure, they accept the rules, and they accept that the outcome of this mediation will be a conciliation award, which itself is a decree of under the arbitration and conciliation act. So this is, this is like I'm just explaining the process. I don't think we need a separate mediation bill that is my take on it for taking the private mediation forward, rather we are well equipped with our knowledge of mediation process. And the mediation and conciliation act on with us, we should be able to do private mediation in a very big way. But the only thing is, we are missing out on awareness programs about mediation how mediation can be helpful in the private sector, and how to go to those mediators or those organizations, which have well trained mediators with good facilities to provide the facility of mediation. With that, I think I can leave the discussion to go on. Thank you. So, because you are muted, the ball is in your game, I will not, you will take out both of you. Yeah. Mr. Jamad, you have an introduction then Mr. Lakhandpal will give the insights. I think he's, he knows that I can't speak so well as he does. So that's why it's better I speak first, so that some people listen to me also. After the last speech, I will be irrelevant that way. No, no, no. Mr. Manan, before we take the session. In fact, they were both comparing me with Jawad, I think they are doing very wrong. Because Jawad has been our teacher, he has taught us mediation, he has held our advanced training, so I don't compare myself with you Jawad in any way. I think you're just being kind, you're just being kind, that's all. Not at all. It's a heartfelt feelings I have for you. We have learned so much from you. Aatoji will give, probably, at least I feel that private mediation has not kicked off the Punjab and I put to that extent the way it should be. Not high court, I will say, in this area as such has not been kicked off. Where in people do feel that it is a necessity, but be that as it may, and that is why probably this session is primary to sensitize people on this issue. Yes. So the topic is value of mediation and sanctity of mediation. That's what I've been told by Vikas. For understanding the value of mediation, I must relate to use some of, one, two small antidotes, which will actually explain the value of mediation. It's a small joke kind of a thing. There was a case going on. The court case was decided by the judge. The lady stood up and said that justice has not been done to me. The judge said, yes, I know justice has not been done, but I've just cleared my fight, cleared my table, that's it. If you can say in Hindi, they say, in saaf nahi hua, kata moja malo mein, main saaf main saaf ki hai. So this is the situation today. So if you are in court, you will never get justice, but in mediation, once two people are there deciding the future themselves, I think justice is done in mediation than in any other court in India or anywhere else. That's what my take is on mediation. The second little one I'll tell you and to note which has happened with me also and I think it would be happening with anyone. We were in mediation centre in Punjab and High Court. One of the judges comes and says, how do you do mediation? I told him the process. Then you must be threatening out the parties also. No, no, that the only threat we issue to the parties is if you don't settle in, go and suffer for 30 years in the courts. Honestly, I have put in more than about 40 years in practice, but today I can't even honestly tell my client in what time I will get you justice. If not justice, will the case be decided? Will it be decided in this lifetime? Lifetime, I'm not saying uncertainty of life, but general expectancy of life I'm saying. Can we actually say with our hands on our hearts that you will get justice or the case will be decided in your lifetime? I think the answer will be no, if honestly. If we get through the trial court and the first appropriate court, then we have bottlenecks in High Court, then the party goes to Supreme Court. I think in our part of the country, we have litigation for pending for laws 30 to 35 years in civil care matters and 40 years in criminal matters. So I think the value of mediation is clear from the fact that all the people are trying to jump into Mediation Bank and especially the honorable judges are also not trying to become mediators even after retirement. I don't want to commend what she didn't want to herself, but somewhere I agree with him. Let's just leave something for the lawyers to add to my mind that judges can never become good mediators because that cap never goes off authority. And in Mediation, we have to remove that cap of authority only then we can actually do Mediation. That's what we have been taught by Jawad. Am I right or wrong Jawad? Absolutely right, sir. So there are little things which are troubling people that what is the security of private mediation? Well, private mediation, if we settle the issues, there is a provision under the Arbitration Act, the Arbitration Constellation Act Chapter 3, where it can become a Constellation Award. It can be enforced as per the award, as per the Constellation Award. It can also be kind of being done in this arbitration proceedings also, which they say that it can't be done. I think even Mediation can be done in arbitration proceedings also. I think it's a very prenatal state, I would say, where we are actually hoping to go in a big way in private mediation. People are not actually sanitized about the Mediation process and the Mediation, whether it will be, it can be binding amongst the people or there can be preliteration Mediation or if they go for Mediation, whether they can actually go to the course after that. I think there are all misconceptions, a lot of misunderstandings amongst the people, so they're not choosing private Mediation as such. I think in both ways they are wrong. I think Mediation can be done pre-litigation and after the litigation also, after the course, private litigation, there's no bar. In court and next Mediation, yes, in pre-litigation Mediation, they say unless you have been to the courts, unless you have not been to the courts, only then you can come in pre-litigation. That's what our rules say, but I think even private Mediation, as a private mediator, there's no bar. Even in the case of spending in the courts, in the High Court or Supreme Court, they can approach a private mediator and come into the settlement. That's what my understanding of law is that once we are the private mediator, there's no bar in it. Well, and then a lot of, I will just go through, though there was no light, so I just go through many documents which I have found that even in, it is also enforceable under the contract act. It can be taken as a contract and enforceable. And even if that happens, and that happens in very rare circumstances in the party backs out of the contract, but the very spirit of Mediation, if the Mediation has been done in the real spirit of Mediation, and when both the parties have agreed to all the terms and conditions, and once they have understood whatever the is, there are very rare chances of parties backing out of the Mediation. I have seen very few cases where the parties get misguided by some lawyers or some people to back out of the settlement. Otherwise, there is no way. And I said, this is an enforceable right. It can, even in this consumer contract, there is a provision now for everyone to call this commercial act, they have introduced this 12 way, five of the commercial acts. They have made it mandatory and it can be enforced, even 34 of the arbitration act, it can be enforced under the 36 of the arbitration act. So there is no difficulty in getting enforced. The sanctity of the sanctity of Mediation as such is well recognized even without the bill. So the only thing is the push needed for private mediation is in your part, in Varuna's place, there are people who are in private mediation. But unfortunately, in our part of the country, they are not. If they are not, if they are not, but then they are not significant enough to make so many dent in the entire process. And still, there is no person who has actually taken up the private mediation here. So the sanctity-wise, I feel even before the codified law was there in India, introduced in India. We had this panchayati system which was, which is akin to mediation, which is very, we have in fact very old history of mediation. Those people actually mediate. But now we can't expect subconscious or punches who are elected people to be impartial in any way. We can't actually expect them. So we ought to have some mechanism even for private mediators and some authority controlling this private mediation. Otherwise, one black sheep can ruin the entire process and the entire private mediation will go for a talk. Something has to be done about that also. I see some hands standing if there is some question. There was one person who wanted to ask something. Anyway, that is my take on this subject. Dramindra I think is raising hand. If I may suggest something, sir, can we keep the questions to the end? Yeah, yeah, that's it. So that is what I'd like to say that the value of mediation today is more relevant today than in any century. Because we have been bogged down by the procedure laws. The procedure laws are not giving us justice anyway. Half of the law courts are based on interpreting the procedure laws. I don't know how the procedure laws decide the fate of a person. And it takes years and years to decide what has been said and not said in the pleadings. In the mediation process, I think it's all accepted and acted upon and that's a very good thing about mediation. That's what I want to say. Over to you, Joab. Thank you very much, sir. I think you gave quite a good overview of what the topic is all about. Now, and also for being so kind as to accommodate my request to start. And also for the very generous things that you said about me. I don't know whether I deserve all that, but I'm very grateful to you for making me feel important. You deserve more. I am a little miser with my words. Thank you, sir. And I also acknowledge the presence of Mr. JP Singh, Senior Advocate here. He's also been my teacher at one point of time. He's been our teacher also. In fact, we learned from him. Exactly, yeah. So just coming back to the topic, first of all, thank you to all of you who have joined today. Because when Vikash asked me yesterday, I was wondering, it was totally done at a very short notice because yesterday morning he called me and said, can we have a talk in the evening tomorrow? And because I was expecting some guests in the evening, I said, can we have it instead of your usual time? Can we have it at five? And he readily agreed to accommodate me. And I was wondering on a Sunday evening, how many people would really feel interested to take time off their weekend and come and sit here and listen to me. But really good numbers I hear. Thank you so much for all of you for joining. Now, I understand that there are people who are new to the concept of mediation who don't know what mediation is all about. So Atulji has also already given us sort of an overview of where we stand today. What is the sanctity of private mediation? Let me just start by talking to you about what is mediation? Mediation, there was a point of time when I used to tell people I'm a mediator and they will ask me, is there any good flat for sale? Is there any good plot of land for sale? Because in my jurisdiction, people call real estate dealers or brokers as mediators. So I used to get those queries. So then I had to clarify that I'm a dispute resolution specialist. So I stopped using the word mediator. So even if you see in my LinkedIn profile, it'll be digital dispute resolution specialist. Because I don't want people to get confused and come with proposals of buying or selling land to me. Be that as it may. Now, what is mediation exactly? Now, if two people are having a disagreement between them, we usually find that the first step is to talk to each other, try to negotiate the disagreement and find a solution. Now, many times what happens is we are always looking at things from our point of view. So supposing, let's say that I have a disagreement with Vikash. I mean, he's a very sweet guy. Nobody can disagree with whatever he says. Mr. Baby George, can you just mute your audio, sir? Yeah. So supposing I have a disagreement with Vikash. Now, what I do is I look at that disagreement only from my point of view, thinking that I'm right and Vikash is wrong. And Vikash also has the same point of view where he thinks that he's right and I'm wrong. Now, what we do is we request a person like Atulji and tell him that, sir, look, we have this disagreement. Can you help us to come to an agreement? And Atulji says, fine, let's sit and talk about it. And then he asks me, what is your perspective of this issue that is there between you and Vikash? And I explain to him my point of view. And then he speaks to Vikash and finds out his point of view. And then he asks me questions and he asks Vikash questions to help us to understand each other's perspective and gradually leads us to come to an agreement that would be acceptable to Vikash and acceptable to me also. Now, the whole point of this mediation is every dispute or every disagreement need not end in a loss for somebody and a win for someone. Both people who are in disagreement can always get something out of it. I'm consciously not using the word win-win because that's a very commonly used term for mediation. They say win mediation is always a win-win prospect. Now, I don't look at it as a win-win prospect. I would rather say that I may not exactly win, but I will get something out of it, something that I can live with, something that would be acceptable to me. And Vikash also gets something which is acceptable to him, something that he can live with and both of us are happy because it is something that we have decided. Now, one of the unique aspects of this is Atulji is not going to tell us what to do. He's not going to tell us that look Jawad and look Vikash, this is what you should be doing. This is what you, Jawad, you should be doing. This is what Vikash should be doing. He's not going to tell us that, but he's going to gradually take us to that stage where we understand each other's needs and we say that, okay, this is something that we can agree upon. So this is basically what is mediation. Now, if you look at mediation from that perspective as two people having a disagreement involving a third person to help them to reach an agreement, the scope becomes very wide. In order for you to go through the process of mediation, it is not necessary that you need to have a disagreement. Now, let's say that two people are trying to enter into an agreement. They are negotiating the terms of that agreement. Let's say to buy your property, for example, or to enter into a contract for developing something, maybe perhaps some property. Now, there also, I may come forward with my point of view and the other person may come forward with his point or her point of view. If a mediator comes there, it helps us to formulate that agreement in such a way that we avoid any future disputes because now lawyers can play a very significant role there. I agree with that because my lawyer is going to be advising me on how I can strengthen my position under the agreement that is going to come about, under the contract that I am going to enter in. Now, Vikash's lawyer may tell him that these are the points that you need to safeguard your interests. Now, a mediator being a neutral person because the mediator is not connected to me, not connected to Vikash. Now, the mediator comes there and helps us to understand that if you enter into a contract, these are all the things that you need to take care of so that both your interests are protected. So, the mediator that facilitates the negotiation between Vikash and me in a more principled manner rather than making it an adversarial process where I am trying to get the largest piece of the cake or Vikash is trying to get the larger piece of the cake rather than allowing that to happen. The mediator says that, okay, let's have a principled negotiation between both of you. I will help you to negotiate. I'll help you to understand what is important for you and reach an agreement. So, even before a dispute starts or a disagreement starts, we can have a mediator. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, if really if companies understand the value of involving a mediator before they enter into a contract. I am sure that many disputes can be avoided in the future, in the working of the contract. Now, that is one way mediation can play a role. The second way that mediation can play a role is when you have a disagreement. As I have already explained to you what the mediator does. But Vikash and I have a disagreement. What does Atulji do in that? He helps us to understand each other's needs and interests. He takes us beyond oppositions because I am very angry, because I am very upset with Vikash because I feel that Vikash has caused some loss to me or has hurt me in some way and this is what I want. I want to punish Vikash for that. Vikash has that same idea in his mind. But Atulji tells us that, okay, what is it that you are going to get out of this? How are you going to benefit out of this? What happens to your future relationship? How would you like to see your future relationship working on? Is there any benefit for you in continuing with your relationship? Or do you think it is best that you part ways or make a deal? What happens if you are not able to resolve this? Are you going to go to the court? How much is it going to cost you? How much pain and agony that you are going to undergo through all this process? So he helps us to understand what our real needs are and helps us to come to an agreement. Now, that agreement may not be the best thing. Okay, it may not be exactly what I want but it is what I need. It is something that I can get without any violence. Litigation is violence because what happens in litigation? What happens when you go to the court? You use words which are very strong. Okay, you impute motives. You attribute blame. Okay, and you do so many other things there which really go on to create a sort of a very negative atmosphere where the animosity between the two people who are involved in the dispute becomes more deeper. Whereas in mediation, we can avoid all that because the mediator recognizes the fact that I feel very strongly about this, respect my emotions. Whereas my emotions are not going to be respected in the court. How I feel about the dispute is not going to be discussed in the court. Whereas the mediator is going to discuss that with me. So by just the mediator talking to me and asking me the right question, I feel much more comfortable. Okay, I develop a trust with the mediator. I know that the mediator is a competent person and the mediator is neutral and she's going to do the best for me. Okay, so this is how mediation works. So one is before a conflict arises, you can go for mediation. You can go for mediation after a conflict arises. You can also go for mediation after the conflict arises and you have already gone to the court or for arbitration of any other dispute resolution process. You can still go for mediation. Now that is what happens in both court and ex-mediation where if you have a dispute, you have gone to the court already and the court tells you that look, Baba, there's no point in you fighting over this. This is something that you can perhaps reach a negotiated agreement and here is the mediator whom we have trained for this purpose. You go to this mediator and get your problem resolved. That is court and ex-mediation. Now what you do before you go to the court is private mediation. Now as Atulji pointed out, the question arises. If before going to the court, I appoint a mediator and the mediator mediates the dispute and we are able to reach an agreement. What is the sanctity of that agreement? Now let's say that there has been a contract in which a dispute has arisen and the mediator mediates and we reach an agreement. Is that going to be another contract between us which perhaps may lead to further disputes? If supposing the other party breaches that contract, should I then go and file an execution petition in the court? Not decisive. As Atulji pointed out, we have different mechanisms in which unfortunately today we don't have an act in the law. One of the main reasons why we want the law in place is because of the enforceability of a mediated settlement agreement. That is one of the reasons we need a law. So we don't have to call it as conciliation or we don't have to call it by any other name. Though to borrow Shakespeare's words, a rose will smell as sweet by whatever name it may be called. So the question is, what do we do in the absence of a law? Now Supreme Court also has come to a rescue and in the very famous Afqon's case which was rendered in 2010, the Supreme Court has said that mediation is akin to the Lokadalat which is constituted under the legal services authorities act. So we all know that an award of the Lokadalat is like a quantity. So either you can treat a mediated settlement agreement which is done privately as a mediation done by a Lokadalat. Of course, the mediator is not somebody who is a Lokadalat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act. So perhaps there is a bit of a gray area there. But as Atulji pointed out, we have part three of the arbitration and conciliation act of 1996. Part three talks about the process of conciliation. Now why is it called conciliation over there? And why are we talking about mediation? Are these two different processes? Seemingly they seem to be two different processes because wherever you will see any of our Indian laws talking about mediation, they say mediation or conciliation or mediation and conciliation. Whether you take the Companies Act, whether you take section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code which talks about Quotanex mediation or even the Arbitration and Conciliation Act if you see section 30, it says that the arbitrator can refer the parties for mediation or conciliation. So these two are treated as two different processes. Now one of the significant changes that may happen if the Act comes into force with that, this difference is going to be obliterated. This difference is going to be removed and mediation will be mediation whether it is called a conciliation or any other. So it will still be regarded as mediation. So the conditions are that one, it should be a voluntary process. Parties should take part in it voluntarily. Number two, it should be a confidential process. Number three, the mediator should be a neutral third party who has no stake in the dispute. Number four, the parties have to determine the outcome of the mediation, whether they wish to settle or they don't wish to settle and if they wish to settle, what is that they are settling about? It is left to the parties. The mediation process should be a without prejudice one. It should not affect the parties in any way if it fails and it should be a completely confidential process and the confidentiality operates at different levels. Any information that is shared between the parties shared with the mediator, everything is covered by confidentiality. Now if you see conciliation, all these parameters are there because how does the conciliation process start? You issue a notice to the other party saying that, as Varuna pointed out, saying that, look, we have a dispute. So why don't we have conciliation? Let's go for conciliation to resolve a dispute. Now the other party has 30 days time after receiving the notice to say yes or to say no. And if within 30 days that other party does not respond to that, it is deemed to be no. So there is no conciliation. A similar provision exists in commercial court act policy because you have to issue a notice to the defendant inviting the defendant for mediation. If the defendant comes and takes part in the mediation, mediation takes place. So either you may reach a settlement, you may not reach a settlement. If the other party does not respond or refuses to come, you can go to the court under the commercial court act. Similarly, conciliation also. If the other party comes, then the conciliator is appointed by mutual consent. Both parties can agree that, okay, so and so will be the conciliator for us. Conciliation process takes place. Now in a conciliation, one of the significant departures from mediation as we understand. Because I had to remember, if you remember I had earlier told you that mediator does not tell the parties what to do. Does not tell the parties how they should resolve the dispute or does not tell them that, okay, this is the agreement that you should be entering into. Whereas the conciliator has the power to tell the parties that, okay, look, can this agreement be on this frame? Would you like to consider these terms to resolve the dispute? Now it is left to the parties to either accept that or to modify it or to reject it and come forward with their own. Whereas in mediation, the mediator does not even do that. Does not even give the terms of settlement to the parties. So this is the essential difference between mediation and conciliation. So what the Supreme Court says is, if you want to do conciliation, you call it as conciliation and follow the process that is given in Part 3 of the arbitration and conciliation. If you don't follow the process, if you start it as a mediation, you cannot later on call it as a conciliation. So what we are now doing is whenever we get two parties' approaches saying that, can you mediate this dispute? We tell them that, look, we can treat this as a conciliation. So this is the process that we are going to follow, okay? So we follow the process of mediation in the sense that whatever is required in mediation, I will come to how the mediation process works also so that you get to know how exactly a mediator works. What happens in a mediation? What are the stages of mediation? We go through those stages, but we follow the process prescribed under the conciliation Part 3 of the arbitration and conciliation act. And when we reach an agreement, the parties sign the agreement and the conciliator authenticates the agreement. The conciliator does not find the agreement. Which means that the conciliator says that the parties came before me, conciliation took place, the parties reached an agreement and this is the agreement that is enforced. So any conciliates and it is deemed to be an arbitral award on agreed terms. So therefore it has to be stamped like an arbitral award. So the judicial non-judicial stamp paper that you use should be as per what is required under the arbitration for an arbitral. So basically it's an arbitral award on agreed terms. Now that what happens is becomes is deemed to be like a decree of the court. It is executable. So if any party defaults, you can go and execute the arbitral award. That is the conciliation agreement or for convenience sake, you just call it as an award on agreed terms because that's what the statute also talks about. So there is an element of sanctity to the mediation process by simply changing the nomenclature and calling it as conciliation. So now one other aspect that I want to talk to you about is the stages of mediation. How does mediation work? It's a very scientifically designed process because you are having two parties who are at loggerheads. They are not able to see eye to eye on a particular issue. And your hands as a mediator are tied because you're not supposed to tell them what they should be doing. So it was something like when I first started learning the mediation process, I recalled what went through my mind when I saw somebody cycling, when I started learning to cycle. I was wondering there are two wheels, one in front of the other. And how are we supposed to sit there and balance and pedal forward and how are we supposed to move it? But when I learned the cycling process, how do you cycle? And yes, you can balance yourself and you can pedal the cycle and it really moves. It was a kind of a revelation for me because I realized that it's not really that difficult. So when you say that in the mediation, you're not supposed to advise, you're not supposed to suggest, you're not supposed to tell the parties what to do. But yet you're supposed to help them to come to an agreement. It is somewhat like how do you cycle? So that question comes to mind. Now how this process works is it is entirely based on the basic understanding of human psyche because mediation recognizes first and foremost that every dispute, every disagreeing is between two people, two human beings who have feelings, who have emotions, who have their own way of looking at things, who are victims of their own perceptions. Okay, perceptions are basically those filters through which we look at the world. Now how I see the world may be completely different from how somebody else may be seeing the world or for that matter even how my wife may be looking at the world or how my daughter looks at the world. It might be completely different because my perceptions are based on my own experiences on the environment in which I grew up in, on what I was taught to believe in and what somebody else looks at or understands or tries to understand the world is completely different because their experiences, the value systems that they follow, their own beliefs, color their perception of what is happening. So mediation recognizes that people have a different way of looking at the same thing. No two people can look at the same incident, the same event may be perceived in two different ways by two different people depending on where you're coming from, what your beliefs are, what your values are. So it is completely different, so mediation recognizes that and mediation also recognizes that unless and until our feelings and emotions are addressed, there cannot be a holistic resolution of our conflict. Because even if the external conflict may be resolved, the internal conflict may continue. So how do we bring about that? So what mediation we do is we listen to the part which is something we may not perhaps do as lawyers. Like I always ask people what is the difference? Why do we call it as a court hearing? The court is hearing my matter, that's what we say. You don't say the court is listening to my matter, why don't we say that? You hear a sound, but you listen to music. What is this difference between hearing and listening? Because when you're hearing, you're hearing only the facts and the law. When you're listening, you're listening to the facts and you're listening to the emotions behind those facts. So you're listening to how the people are feeling about this, how the person who's talking to you is feeling about it. You're recognizing that and you're showing the party that the person who's talking to you that you're understanding what that person is going through. And friends believe me that can have a very cathartic effect. We hardly listen to each other. Listening is a very emotional. A good listener cannot be a bad human. If you're a good listener, you have to be a good human because only good people can listen. So we always say that mediation training is a life-changing experience because when you get trained as a mediator, you basically get to understand and respect people, understand people for what they are, what they feel, where they are coming from. So unless you go to that essence of who this person is, how do you help that person to solve the problem? So the mediation process is structured in such a way that a mediator first makes an opening statement. In that opening statement, the mediator explains to the parties that, okay, this is the voluntary process. You're free to walk out of this at any time. So the very first act of showing respect is there that I respect your autonomy to walk out from this. You're not bound to sit and listen to me. Can you do that in the court? Can you walk out of the court? You can't. You have no choice. You have to be there. But here you can walk out. So that is the first step to put you at ease that I can walk out of this at any time. The second part of it is, it is a confidential process. So whatever we discuss here is between us. The outside world is not going to know about it. Nobody is going to know about what we spoke. It's between us. So you can feel free to tell me anything that is important. And I'm not going to disclose it to anyone. And I'm not going to be judging you about it. Okay. So I will respect the confidentiality. The third thing that the mediator tells the people for parties is this. This process is not going to cause any harm to you. If you reach an agreement, you have that agreement. If you don't reach an agreement, you're back to square one. You're back to where you started. So no harm is going to come to you through this process. The mediator lays down some rules. The mediator says that we are not bound by the law, though mediation operates under the shadow of the law. There's a distinction, but that will take a long time to explain. But let us understand this, that you cannot reach an agreement that is against the law. Okay. You cannot have a gambling agreement, for example, because it's prohibited by the law. So mediation operates under the shadow of the law, but in the mediation, you're not bound by any procedural formalities as to what can be discussed, whether this is bad by limitation, whether that is acceptable or not. So all these questions don't come up. Okay. So it's all about what is important for the parties. But the two rules that mediators always prescribe are very basic housekeeping rules, uninterrupted listening to each of them, and polite conversation. Because we are sitting here to reach an agreement and we cannot reach an agreement if we keep abusing each other or accusing each other. Okay. So if you're really upset, we can always have a private session where you can vent out all your emotions to me. And I'm here to listen to you. Okay. So we lay down the ground rules. And then, now what happens when people listen to you and all the time you're smiling, you're looking at them, you're meeting their eyes, you're looking at their eyes and you're talking to them, to both of them equally. You show your neutrality. You show that you're interested in them. You show that you care for them and they begin to trust you. So the very first step towards trusting the mediator starts from the mediator. Then you listen to both the parties. Uninterrupted. You listen to them and all the time, you're asking them questions for clarification. You're summarizing what they're saying. You're reframing anything that may not be very positive, which may have some negative connotation. You're reframing that. So all these techniques you're using while you're listening to the people. And when you summarize and show them that you have understood what they're saying. So you're not confining yourself only to the facts and the law. You're also listening to their feelings. I can see that this situation has upset you a lot. And if I'm the speaker, I will feel very happy that here's somebody who's understanding what I feel about this. So the trust develops more. Then the mediator sits with both the parties and says, okay, so from what I heard from you, I understood that these are the important issues that we need to be talking about. And we need to be finding a solution. Once the parties agree that, okay, these are the issues that we need to be talking about. Now, there are different styles of mediation. There is what is called a shuttle mediation where parties are taken into two different rooms. The mediator goes to one party and says, okay, this is what I heard from you and this is important for you. So how would you like to see this result? Have you got any offers to make? Have you got any proposal? So the mediator listens to that, tests that proposal, finds out whether it is specific, finds out whether it has a value to it, whether it is something that is achievable, does all this and then goes to the other party, listens to that party and then exchanges the offers. Because sometimes what happens if you do this process jointly, people may start post-charing. So they may not like to come out with the real offer, how they would like to really resolve, because they don't want the other party to think that they are talking from a position of weakness. So the mediator takes the burden on herself and keeps shuttling between both the parties, trying to get them into an alignment where the mediator satisfied that, okay, now the parties are closed, so now is the time to convey the offer. So you go and convey the offer. So in this manner an agreement is brought up in a mediational process. So if the process is done effectively and parties sign the agreement after really understanding that, okay, this is the best thing that can happen to me and this is the best that I can expect to get. Now even if I go to court, it's going to take me so many years and it's a gamble, I will not get this. I might as well agree to this. Now when they wholeheartedly agree to that, after understanding all the pros and cons, I have a simple question to ask, why should they go back on that agreement? The very fact that it is their agreement that they have signed voluntarily gives it its own sanctity. If at all they commit a breach of that agreement, it may perhaps be because of some unforeseen circumstance which they did not anticipate. Come back to the table again. Get the mediator involved, find a solution for that. So where is the question of executability or anything? A court's decree has to be executed for the simple reason because I am the defendant and I have not agreed to that decree. It is something that is forced on me. Whereas this is an agreement that I have signed, I have accepted and I have really signed it after accepting that this is the best thing that can happen to me. This is the best outcome that I can expect. So that itself has its own sanctity. So why should I go back on that? So the question of executing that doesn't arise at all. Going to the court to get it executed or to enforce it doesn't arise at all. For the simple reason because it's my agreement and I have thought about it, mediator has helped me to understand what the pros and cons are and I have come to a conclusion that this is the best that can happen. So why should I go back on that? So my firm belief is a good mediated settlement agreement is one which carries its own sanctity. It has its own value. People don't go back on their own agreements. They have agreed to that. So why should they go back? The question of enforcing something would come if they are compelled to go for mediations. If they are compelled to enter into an agreement. If something is suppressed from them and they are misled into entering into an agreement and they come to know later that the information was not given to them or some information was suppressed from them or some misinformation was given to them. So when you make sure that the information that is exchanged that's transparent is correct. Now supposing one person is relying upon a forged document and tells me in a private fashion that look I have this document the person doesn't know that it is forged I would tell this person that okay look this is what we should do. In my view this should be brought to the knowledge of the other person but I cannot compel you to do that. If you are willing to do it I can continue with the mediations but if you are not willing to do it it goes against my principles as a professional mediator to proceed with this mediation because the other person doesn't know that this is forged and if you reach an agreement on the basis of a forged document if tomorrow the person knows that my credibility is at stake so I cannot be a party to this now I leave the choice to you. So this is what the mediator should be doing. So where is the question of anybody going back on the agreement because it is their agreement they have reached it after understanding all the pros and cons so that itself transfers sanctity on the agreement there is no question of enforcing because parties will honour the agreement it is their agreement. Now one very important aspect that I, Atulji also pointed out is who can be a mediator the answer is as simple anyone can anyone can be a mediator because if I am exceeding my time just give me 5 minutes more I will finish it ok. In a private mediation it is extended. Thank you. So I would just share that Mr. Seenal also joined we will ask him to chip in. Yes yes yes. So I just wanted to say this and conclude that anybody can be a mediator but the whole problem is you may be a very good listener you may be a very good negotiator but if you are trained in that ok see people are prodigies many people can do many things on their own without getting trained without knowing anything they can do a lot of things on their own but the problem is when some stumbling block comes some obstacle comes you don't know how to overcome that you may be naturally talented you may be very good in listening you may be very good in negotiation you may be very good in talking to people empathizing with them and all that but if you don't understand if you don't have the process skills then it becomes a challenge for you if you are faced with a situation which you don't know how to handle so that is where the importance of getting trained as a mediator comes it's a completely different mindset when I used to be practicing litigation in the court one of my trainers gave me a very simple mantra she said you are conducting an adversarial proceeding you are fighting over there you are blaming somebody you are bashing up somebody verbally you are doing also discrediting someone you are doing all that now suddenly you are supposed to go and sit in a mediation which is a completely different process it operates on a completely completely different paradigm how do you do that she said do a very simple exercise imagine that you are wearing the hat of a lawyer remove that hat, the imaginary hat keep it down and say I am no longer a lawyer I am now a mediator and wear the mediator's hat and then go and do it take some deep breaths close your eyes and perhaps meditate for 5 minutes calm yourself and then go in a different frame of mind to mediation now I was finding that increasingly difficult for me so therefore I decided no more litigation for me let me do only mediation and unfortunately mediation doesn't provide enough money for me to look after my family so I sometimes have to do arbitrations also but I prefer to act as an arbitrator rather than be a lawyer in arbitration so luckily I get some work as an arbitrator but the fact is you know mediation requires a completely different mindset you basically you have to love people you have to be interested with people and whenever I do training I tell my trainees that I follow a simple mantra I say that mediation is a healing process and mediator is a healer so basically you are healing the conflict so I will stop here friends thank you for your patience and for listening for such a long time I hope I didn't ramble too much and if I did please forgive me for that thank you Vikash over to you I will ask Mr. Vikash to Mr. Sain if he is still here because your audience is not coming clear in fact we didn't have the light so I have logged in through the this thing I will see if Mr. Sain is there I will ask Mr. Sain to unmute him thank you Vikas Vikas I am in midst of my elections but when I went Jawad sent me his the flyer and said he was speaking I couldn't resist myself and it's always a pleasure to hear Jawad and in fact two things were raised Varuna talked about court annexed mediation and how beautifully Jawad explained you the entire process so far as the process of mediation is concerned now we are talking about scientificity and importance well let's first understand what is the difference or commonality between the court annexed mediation and private mediation see both have the same process so far as the mediation part is concerned the process is the same now question is enforceability Mr. Lakhanpal rightly pointed out and Jawad concurred that part 3 of the arbitration and conciliation act we use till the mediation law comes into being when a private mediation happens the settlement agreement you see if it is merely a settlement agreement to enforce it you will have to file a suit in case if there is a default Jawad rightly said that 99% of the times that doesn't happen because you own the settlement so there is no question of problem in enforcement and to overcome that 1% chance what we do we use chapter 3 of the arbitration and conciliation act and we convert the mediated settlement into a conciliation settlement he's also beautifully explained to you the difference between mediation and conciliation so once you have a conciliated settlement under section 74 is a deemed award once it is a deemed award it has the enforcement of a decree so you can execute it now that is so far as enforcement is concerned now the only difference between private and court annex mediation is in a court annex mediation the dispute has already landed in court now we are talking about dispute resolution or conflict resolution now what is a dispute you know it is an injurious experience which goes through three phases you know something which we call see I am just giving you a little so that since I am here and there are so many people hearing in they can add value I am saying adding value beyond what Jawad says is very difficult but then I said let me just add a few things about you know this every dispute goes through three phases the first this injurious experience look let me tell you every injurious experience need not become a dispute you see we may have difference of opinion but it is not necessary that I may voice it to you so that or we have a you know a dialogue where we agree with each other and ultimately land up in a situation where we stop talking to each other you know it does not happen all the time so every injurious experience need not become a dispute now let me tell you now which are the three phases every dispute goes through the first is the naming stage when we feel that the grievance is unwanted you know or we feel disvalued and therefore we name a dispute I will give you an example I may say I do not like my job now I have named what kind of dispute or a grievance or an injury that I am going through the second phase is the blaming stage when I blame a person because of which I do not like my job so my boss the same example my boss gives me lot of work and does not pay me enough so that is the blaming stage I blame some person then comes the claiming stage and the claiming stage is when I demand from that person please remedy it and he refuses to remedy it he says look you want to work with this much of money that I am paying you fine otherwise leave the job now when we have gone through this NBC we call it the NBC model naming, blaming, claiming then we take this grievance to a lawyer he converts it into a suit and the suit lands up in court so private mediation happens before the matter or the dispute actually lands up in court because we personally feel that every dispute need not land up in court courts are not supposed to decide every dispute see your neighbors you know you have neighborhood disputes where dog is barking at night you have the dog bit the you know the neighbors child these can be resolved across the table these disputes need not land up in court and therefore the importance of private mediation because there are several injurious experiences or disputes which we can resolve by using the services of a mediator uses the process which has been explained by Jawad and once you have a settlement you make it enforceable by part 3 of arbitration and consideration act and all this till the mediation act which is in the annual comes into force once the mediation act comes then probably like you know the act itself will provide for a machinery for both private and community mediation and because since we were party to that so therefore these are the provisions which are already part of that act and I am sure I think in next 6 months you should have the law and I think I was Jawad's show I think I have talked enough, thank you Thank you Thank you so much I am saying first of all we wish him all the best for his elections so that he can take the mediation though he is already taking that pattern forward meanwhile one question has come let's assume there is a private mediation what can be the enforceability in respect of the civil commercial ones and in respect of our family matrimonial disputes where arbitration clause or an agreement is not built how do the parties of 8 arbitration consideration come to the parties just you I think that is on the chat Vikash Azul ji shall I yeah yeah please continue so I think the question is an agreement enjoys the same status and enforceability of the contract what about the enforceability in case of mediation other than civil commercial one okay that is where I think even you know I think the further question I think that has come about from Sangeetha Mehrotra is that I mean in a family or matrimonial disputes where arbitration clause an agreement is not present how the ANC act comes to the parties rescue now there need not be an arbitration clause Sangeetha because part 3 stands on its own footing part 3 does not require an arbitration clause to be there if you look at part 3 it says that if there is the dispute arising of a legal relationship between the parties whether contractual or otherwise the one party can issue a notice to the other party inviting the party for a conciliation and if the other party agrees and comes forward the conciliation can take place in under 74 of the which comes under part 3 the the agreement that is reached between the parties you have to read it with section 30 of the arbitration conciliation act where it says that it will be deemed to be an arbitrable on agreed terms so there does not have to be a separate arbitration clause for it to come under the purview of the arbitration and conciliation I hope that is clear Javad can I add to that yes please JP this is where part 3 says that is what we do instead of the person appointed as a mediator same person is appointed there is a provision for appointing as a conciliator and so that settlement gets converted into a conciliation that is the only difference there are two hands up I think read me whoever that is I think they one has sent a private message it says what about a settlement in which there is a violation of law which prohibits land transfer to non-private that you have already taken then I have already covered I said it operates under the shadow of the law so any agreement that is reached has to be a legally enforceable agreement yeah Prajwal good evening everyone I am Prajwal I am from Bhopal and my question is although Javad sir you have rightly pointed out the differences and similarities between mediation and conciliation and how mediated agreements are treated as conciliation awards what is your take on what will be the situation after the mediation will get into enforcement how what can be the reference because currently the difference major difference comes into the authority of the third party that is there the conciliator or the mediator what will be the situation after the act so if I remember right from the draft mediation bill I think it is going to part 3 may I think get repeat please correct me Athulji or repeat if I am wrong I think part 3 of the arbitration conciliation act may stand repeat because mediation is going to cover all those aspects so once you enter into a mediation then the mediated settlement agreement will have the force of a degree of hope so it will become executing so you do not have to worry about the difference between what is mediation what is conciliation because the definition of mediation will be covering all this and one common nomenclature will be used to denote any collaborator process of dispute registration you should be answering the questions I am just taking something forward wow the student is always a good teacher in private mediation how does the mediator get the authority it is only after the opening statement is made by the mediator and the parties have responded to the notice and they have come in with their councils and all of them are there only then after the opening statement when you ask them this question do you think this process will help you and will you like to participate at that point of time when they say yes then mediators enter into a tripartite agreement and with that in that agreement he lays down the and after the rules are accepted by the parties if I may just interrupt you I think you are absolutely right and he still wants to be Aaroh I am doing the same for Manoj for the treasurer JP can you just mute the mic to fully support JP just one minute sorry Javad I did not hear I had a call see what you are explaining is in a court it is an experience but in a private mediation there is even before the stage parties and mediators get together there is a process where the parties and mediators enter into an agreement so where the fees and all those aspects are discussed you are supporting two candidates you should be openly outside it is a different thing he does not even listen much now you can start so the private mediation process is different from that it is not when the mediator makes the opening statement it is much before that because there is a process called convening the mediation people call it as convening some other people call it as pre-mediation because there are pre-mediation talks which are held between the mediator and the parties in which perhaps the council may also be involved where the venue is discussed the timings are discussed what is the duration of the mediation is discussed what the mediators fees are discussed all this become the subject matter of an agreement to mediate absolutely Varuna I will add whenever the parties agree that you act as a mediator I think mediation process starts yes please yes please the thing is what I was trying to say is that I am not saying in the arena of post litigation or when you have gone to litigation I am saying when in a mediation center there is a walk in or if there is in a pre litigation desk there is a walk in because all legal services the authorities of every state has put in a desk in each and every court premises where they are getting the people directly there so that is whether it is an institution in which the first party comes and a notice is sent out by the institution it may not be the court it is prior to the litigation has started pre litigation mediation under the court annex program it says that is what you are talking about no javad sir I am saying that there is a walk in person he comes with the problem to me and he says Varuna this is the problem so I act like a cussok I say well you can go for litigation you can go for mediation you can go for arbitration if there is a clause but well these are the advantages and disadvantages and then he says okay well I will try for a mediation then a mediation notice is sent out invite is sent out from the taking assistance of the arbitration and conciliation act and the other side comes under within 30 days period and when they come together on the given date they sit together then the mediation process is explained yeah and after that they enter into a tripartite agreement with the rules yeah that is the agreement to be yes so it will be convening at convening of mediation after the notices have been sent out that is what yeah so I think there are two hands raised Vikash one is the red pea is not he is in the red he is not unmuting himself yeah I think you will have to unmute yourself sir and then there is one in teacher house no you are muted still sir please unmute yourself I think we can come to Anil yeah Anil please go ahead I just want to know respond to the discussion which is happening in the last stage where mediation starts actually with my very little experience as you know that I am just like a small baby in this field where mediator and the conflict meets mediation starts I just met somebody in Jaipur secretary till last week and I just said there is a friend of mine in Jodhpur and he says I have a problem and my mediation started yeah the first thing which I told him that no why don't we resolve it no why you have come up to this level to you know chief minister office for a complaint so I feel that the mediation starts where conflict and mediation meets anywhere in our life and it is such a profound and a powerful thing and one more thing like you know what how the initial advocate he said no that the judge asked that you must be threatening to the parties in the mediation I think the biggest threat a mediator can give to the parties is boss resolve here or you will be in the court exactly that's what he also said the only threat I think Mr. Shantanu is here hi we we we are your audio is not clear all the members here can you hear me now please yeah yeah please go ahead am I audible now go ahead yeah so I just had one small doubt when I attended the session about last week and we were talking of conciliation and mediation one thing that came about as an observation there was that in a conciliation situation the conciliator may make suggestions for a deal and that deal cannot end the working relationship of the parties whereas in a mediation it was observed that the deal can end the relationship yeah see actually see the context in which that was told to you was about how it works on the international arena how conciliation is understood in the UK and other countries in India we have a separate relation and conciliation act part 3 so that does not make this distinction between whether the relationship should end or should not end that distinction is not there under our law okay so in both situations the working relationship continues no in India in the Indian context under the Indian law the relationship may also come to an end if that is the agreement that parties are reaching okay got you okay thank you thank you yeah please which is the question I have not got it it says this by Gaurav Kohli if in a family cases mediation if the complainants withdraw their criminal cases against the accused husband and later husband doesn't comply the terms and conditions of those criminal cases would they be reopened or what will be the future course of action by the that it's an in fact a very tricky situation because the once you the mediator becomes deep functional issue after you signed this agreement but yes if the parties back out and don't comply then the remedy remains in the contempt or the restarting of all the litigation that's it this is this is going to be actually I could be taken in this regard for breach of any other contract that if Jawad can add something I think JP would you like to clarify that you're on mute JP JP is more busy in his election I suppose it's gone away what's he contesting for I think vice president I remember that there was a case where there was a settlement and ultimately 406 498 settlement washed again there was harassment we went for the recalling rejected the case that it cannot be recorded but if at all there is any agreement you would have to move forward I think we also add someone clause that if you don't abide by all these terms and conditions still and there will be prevailing so that way I think we cover up some of these issues I think JP is not able to unmute himself because he's contesting an election and he can't be unmuted but he's not unmuted that's what he was talking at that point of time JP can you try now can you just it's fine sorry I was in two minds because of that telephone call you will have to win many minds and that you are telling a third very well okay you know what the answer to this has been given by a judgment of our own icon you see a criminal case can't be reopened once you I squashed or you know it's withdrawn so what we do that judgment says that you know first the civil proceedings are completed and finally after all the terms are complied with then the criminal proceedings are quashed the question is different what is the remedy with the person no that's what I'm saying that is given by a division bench of justice Sima Koli it could be in the method of an undertaking to a court if the person backs off then an undertaking he suffers contempt in matrimonial disputes the problem was 6 months when there is a gap of 6 months a person changes his mind the statute provides for it therefore you cannot do anything about it only thing that happens is the court ask for an institution whatever you advantage you gained under the settlement you have to return that you cannot keep those JP what we have been doing practically is that we add this clause that anybody who backs out from the terms of the conditions doesn't act what as for the limit status quo entail will prevail from the date so therefore the advantage taken by a party under the settlement has to be restored that's true that has to be restored but then some court has to order it no but problem what was said was what happens to the criminal cases criminal cases can't be restored so what we do the judgment our daily high court judgment says first you go through with the civil then then quash the criminal proceedings in the end so that person does not back up once every other term is you know taken care of has been executed practically JP nobody is interested in civil cases in criminal matters it is only the criminal matters which are that's right once they finish off with the civil case they start the criminal litigation again that's true but then that's what the settlement says once the settlement happens I think when we add this terms I think it's quite a different for the parties to back up correct they probably feel that it can be started again we have realized that you know at the stage of once you have even reached settlement at the stage of settlement writing now see how many problems can come yeah that's true so therefore that's another problem we know therefore settlement writing itself is such a difficult problem you have to fill in many holes correct so that parties are not back in court again which election are you testing for vice president yes the vices don't seem to leave me I think you have minor vices that's why they don't leave you thank you so much guys you guys continue I'll take leave okay bye thanks a lot for joining Javad we will just take two separate questions some people have how do you give the final two minutes the sanctity of a private mediation and what is the procedure and number two would be once you said what is the difference between the what is the difference between the hearing of a case can you just come again because first question is what is the sanctity of a private mediation what you have done so let's assume we have to take it in a clip in two minutes how will you sum it up Javad please continue oh okay sorry you want me to sum that up is it yeah my conclusion is that private mediation has its sanctity in the fact that it is the parties agreement and once it is the parties agreement they accept it as their own now even assuming that there is a chance that they may breach the agreement as of now since we don't have a law on mediation we treat it as a conciliation and that is where the status of an arbitral award on agreed terms is conferred upon the conciliation agreement that is reached and that is executable in a court of law okay the second point what was the second point that you asked just for the benefit of the people that why you said it is called the hearing of the case yeah hearing is you listen only to the facts of the case you are not really concerned about how the parties feel about it you hear the words okay you hear the law you hear the facts but you don't listen to what the parties would like to tell you where does the party get a chance to speak in the court even when the party is in the box being examined as a witness asking questions and cross-examination which are either yes or no questions or you don't allow them to express whatever they want to say if supposing a party says that you know I was very hurt by what my brother said you are going to respond saying that that's not relevant here whereas listening is something different you listen to the emotion behind what is being told to you so for example you hear the noise of a door closing it is just a sound you hear the sound because you are listening to the emotion behind that either the singer or the instrument that is being played there is something more to it there is more depth to that so something which is more deeper than hearing is I may add the hearing is something as Jawada said listening is understanding what the man has to say exactly because listening involves a lot of things it's not just the words yes because when you are listening you are also looking at how those words are being told what is the tone of voice what is the body language of the person whether that person is really meaning what he or she is talking about or whether there is some other meaning that is being conveyed through that okay I can even unfortunately we are online I can't give a demonstration of that but let us assume that somebody comes to your house or I come to your house and you offer me a seat and I sit over there I am very uncomfortable I am swimming in my seat and you ask me Jawada are you comfortable and I said yeah I am fine this is how I respond to you because I don't want to offend you you are my host I am a nice guy so I tell you yeah I am fine now in another scenario I come to your house you offer me a seat I am very comfortable I am relaxed and you ask me Jawada are you comfortable I say yeah I am fine now in both the context my words are the same but when you look at my body language in the first instance I am squirming I am I mean in my face getting distorted in different ways I have different contortions on my face if you don't notice that and take my words alone you are going to be having a very uncomfortable guest sitting before you in the second instance my words are the same but my body language shows that I am really comfortable so that is what I mean by the distinction between listening and hearing because when you listen you listen beyond the words I think listening is understanding what does the man is saying exactly yeah very simple what do you want to say something listening and silent are words with the same alphabets but it is the entire distinction like you have said that in the listening you have that silence to understand the emotions Jawada sir when I am explaining the sanctity sanctity of the settlement mediation settlement in a private setup I always say that it has it is of higher sanctity because order 23 rule 3 cpc says that is a consent decree and the enforceability is of a higher degree so it is like a consent decree so it has much more weightage than like you know just a like a consolation settlement you know that is how I tell the parties that by this award which we may say but it is actually a consent decree send some parties to us we will tell them differently we guys you have come to that we are not working tomorrow so so I am in tomorrow I am going for a 40 hours training to I am just taking 2-3 questions with Mr. Jawada taken up for the winding up part like you said that mediation is under the shadow of law could you explain that meaning for what do you mean by shadow of law if the mediation process goes under the that is what I had told Vikash you cannot reach an agreement an mediation that is against the law like illicit cohabitation agreement cannot be reached a gambling agreement cannot be reached something that is prohibited by the law cannot be reached any agreement against the law is void agreement under the contract can't be any agreement against the law any decision against the public policy cannot withstand cannot be any agreement which is de-horsed the law will have no judicial sanction now the third would be we have all believed that people feel that mediation is what like you feel that there is an importance of our training and what are the benefits I will take this question from all of you okay Athil ji you want to go ahead well Vikash these questions were there in our mind when we went for mediation I am talking about taking session Pan India so that people actually no no I am telling you I am telling you my personal experience only when we were actually choosing up for this mediation training we had the same things about this what is this thing why are we wasting time in there but training does happen and it happens to go for good the trained mediator is always going to be faster than the untrained mediator anybody can act as a mediator every lawyer tells us that he is he mediates so many cases but everybody can run but to be professional runner you have to have training that's what my take is I will put my tiner to it I will put my tiner to it so when you are a trained mediator and the settlement is arrived at they make an informed decision the mediator helps the parties to reach an informed decision while when you are standing on the road and deciding something or you are sitting in a community hall and deciding something people feel that they have lost something they are losing on something to buy peace and harmony they don't make an informed decision so this would be I would say the training puts you to that pedestrian when you assist the parties to reach an informed decision well said I think that is very apt see the problem is I think Gaurav has said that training kills the real instinct of an advocate when in advocacy we forget that we are a trained mediator see the thing is instinctively you may be a good cook for example now if somebody asks you to make biryani you may just put a few ingredients together and accidentally the biryani may come out to taste very well but it's a different matter if you are trained in that because there the consistency will be there because every time you make biryani it will be good for the simple reason that you are trained in so now it is as I said mediation is the healing process and mediator is the healer if you apply that concept why do doctors need training why do surgeons need training why do we lawyers need training we all get trained training is basically understanding how a process works and to apply those skills to the process how we apply those skills of course we have the autonomy to decide what kind of skills to be used to seek to suit the situation but you need to understand that now before I became a mediator I did not know what was active listening I did not know the principle negotiation concepts I did not know that the mediation has to follow a particular process there are different stages in mediation I didn't know all these things that is where training becomes important now if I ask my 13 year old grandson ask him to drive the car perhaps because he plays a lot of video games and he knows how a car operates but the problem is unless he is trained unless he goes to a driving school and gets trained and learns how to drive he will not know how to deal with situations that may come up all of a sudden ok you may be instinctively you may be very good at many things but the problem is you need to understand see you can always defend yourself ok anybody can defend himself or herself but why do you need martial arts training to become an expert so the idea is to become an expert if you want to gain expertise you need to undergo training so without training you cannot become an expert you are bound to make mistakes you are bound to do many things which are wrong because you simply don't know what needs to be done at what point of time you don't know the process so that is why I feel that training is important I did not ultimately even from the medieval age and others we would see that why it has been said that there is a distinction between a teacher and a Guru so they say that if you have a Guru or a good trainer like we have all been blissfully blissed that Mr. Javad had trained all of us and people are now blissed that we are on the online where Mr. Atulakappa, Varuna, Mr. Seen they are all polishing in the right way polishing is also an important it is just like what in the cricket we say that if you polish the ball on one side it will start swinging in the same way but for that you also have to have a training in which side you have to polish the ball that could be one way another is that I was reading what you said of Biryani I am reminded that there is a session of Grant Tracy on YouTube as to why there is a necessity of training and he also starts with that if you have a recipe you start following it first time you have to have a clean slate start following what the instructions are but you start following that the natural instinct automatically feels and after 5-10 times of practice you need not look into the YouTube recipe or the recipe in a book and your mind instinctively will take you that so in a training also for remediation once you are trained in that aspect automatically your sparks of the right sense will come into view I also believe that if you have read that book of James Clear on the Atomic Habits it also says that one percent of change within your mindset will start giving you the right inclination suddenly you will not change but once you start changing even one percent then it automatically changes it gives one example that let's assume you have one biscuit avoiding one biscuit daily by the end of the year it's one biscuit of 10 calories so you are saving 3650 calories in a year so that Atomic Habit ultimately converts into habit I think that's good for today we have a lot of takeaways we are indebted to Mr. Atul Lakhampal a senior Roke Mr. Jawad a senior mediator and a trainer and a good friend of ours and Varuna as usual chips in the right time and reminded like just like Mitha Singh Dhoni coming with a helicopter shot and making you win same way Varuna also chips in and gives the right sense and who can forget Mr. Sain we know that despite the tight schedule of our selection but yet they say that you can take out a person's mediation even if you try to take the mediation out or who is a good trainer he will squeeze in the time and come in and that's what the hallmark of Mr. Sain is so everyone stay safe, stay blessed Jawad when are you making Biryani now? Sir actually we are having Biryani today I am expecting some yes that's why he said the session should be at 5 rather than 6 you will be sharing the Biryani today on the virtual platform I wish I could I have a secret to share here I call Mr. Jawad that he is my Vikram and I am the Vitaal anytime I am stuck I just from where are you and the Vikram appears the Vitaal appears always changing the Vikram Bye everyone She is undermining herself Okay Thank you everyone Thanks a lot